Don’t be too dismayed Rosenier ball is still painful

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

Now pull up the number of chances we created under both.

Only Collins and Knight will know how we didn’t score against Charlton.

Now show me any league table that has ever been included a 'chances for' column. 

[Foreveram]

7 hours ago, S8TY said:

Exactly this ….I’ve always played possession football when I’ve managed in both youth and senior football 

When you re watch the games after with the players one of my biggest examples of what not to do was to panic and go long into the channels or just cross for the sake of crossing as some say the opposition can’t score if the ball is in there own half but that is not what you want a team when playing possession football to do if it’s not on you keep the ball go backwards or sideways and keep the ball and be patient do not force it when it’s not on and keep the ball maybe switch it ( quickly ) to the other side and get forward on that side but …ultimately …keep the ball …I learnt from being involved in games out in Holland against very good youth sides that would pass us English sides off the pitch and getting the ball back was difficult …but luckily that has changed a lot now in our game and you only have to look at the beat teams in this country to see higher possession sides are usually more successful ..the passing sideways may have bored some but it was only part of the process and it would’ve got better ..he only had 10 games and that wasn’t enough ….I felt for his pure loyalty alone ( and let’s not forget it must’ve been tempting to walk away to another job during the last season in the championship with all that was going on ) he deserved the season and then seen where we were at progress wise 

but it’s done now …hopeful signs of better football on Tuesday but let’s see if it continues…Warne isn’t a possession biased manager so have my doubts but still like him as a person 

Brighton had 75% possession last night and lost.

[NimonicRam]

7 hours ago, Blondest Goat said:

You only needed a handful of games under Rosenior to understand what the plan was.  A year into Warnes tenure and I've still not got a clue how he wants us to play.  We're never the same from one game to the next.  

Agree with this... But to play devils advocate are we witnessing a degree of pragmatism? Clearly wanted 3 at the back and thought he'd recruited to that regard (Bradley hasn't started well). Then we get a load of injuries so we try to cope implementing different styles, formation and systems. I'll give him till Christmas. If its not working at least give the new guy a window to salvage something. 

[Ghost of Clough]

31 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Saved by your striker scoring goals?! 

😂😂😂

Saved by the best player in the league only being fit enough to play in 34% of the available minutes under Rosenior, but 75% of minutes under Warne.

26 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

We also scored 14 goals,  compared to 9, in the reverse fixtures of the 8 games that Rosenior managed.

McGoldrick featured for only 274 minutes under one manager, then 665 minutes in those corresponding fixtures.

[G STAR RAM]

31 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Saved by the best player in the league only being fit enough to play in 34% of the available minutes under Rosenior, but 75% of minutes under Warne.

McGoldrick featured for only 274 minutes under one manager, then 665 minutes in those corresponding fixtures.

I was always led to believe that a football team was made up of 11 players.

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Foreveram said:

Brighton had 75% possession last night and lost.

They played x10 better in those 25% minutes than we ever have under Warne. I'd be happy to play like them.

[Ghost of Clough]

30 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I was always led to believe that a football team was made up of 11 players.

Are you trying to suggest we would have finished 7th on 76 points with 67 goals scored even if McGoldrick was unavailable for every game under Warne?

[G STAR RAM]

14 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Are you trying to suggest we would have finished 7th on 76 points with 67 goals scored even if McGoldrick was unavailable for every game under Warne?

Not suggesting anything, other than a good manager should be able to adapt to having one player missing from his team.

Without McGoldrick in the team, Dobbin may have got a proper run and developed into a goalscorer.

Its all supposition and you have as much evidence of where we would have finished without McGoldrick as I do...absolutely none.

[trappatoni]

That's nonsense.  Obviously if you take the best player out of a squad you are less likely to do well.  Evidence doesn't have to be 100% proof.  

Would Britain have repelled German invasion if the RAF had comprised half a dozen bi-planes ? Would Tyson Fury be world champion if he was born with one arm ?   

You get the point.

[S8TY]

2 hours ago, Foreveram said:

Brighton had 75% possession last night and lost.

It does happen no one wins every game 

But have more chance of winning the game than losing if you actually have the ball 

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, trappatoni said:

That's nonsense.  Obviously if you take the best player out of a squad you are less likely to do well.  Evidence doesn't have to be 100% proof.  

Would Britain have repelled German invasion if the RAF had comprised half a dozen bi-planes ? Would Tyson Fury be world champion if he was born with one arm ?   

You get the point.

So are we cutting Warne alot of slack for all the injuries to the current squad?

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

So are we cutting Warne alot of slack for all the injuries to the current squad?

Not really. It seems like, if his comment about the Lincoln game and 4231 is correct, that he's spent the summer recruiting for 3 at the back. All teams get injuries and that's why there is a squad not just 11 plus subs.

[ram59]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Are you trying to suggest we would have finished 7th on 76 points with 67 goals scored even if McGoldrick was unavailable for every game under Warne?

You can never be sure one way or another, take a key player out of the set up and the whole team dynamic is likely to change. This change is likely to be negative, but may be positive whereby other player/s step up to the mark. I wonder how often our players took the easy way out last season and just gave the ball to Didzy?

I wonder what would have happened in 1974/75 had our captain and England star Roy Mac, played all season? Would we have won the league at a canter or would we have been an also ran?

[Blondest Goat]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

So are we cutting Warne alot of slack for all the injuries to the current squad?

If only we had a player that was as critical to our success as McGoldrick was.  None of the injured players are head and shoulders above their replacements so no I wouldn't cut Warne any slack because of injuries.  

Made me laugh that Warne credited the poor run of form on the injuries.  Really?   If he was missing the likes of Sibs and Barks so much how come he has benched them for most of 2023? Only Bird and Ward could be considered first choice and neither have proved to be irreplaceable.

[Srg]

2 minutes ago, Blondest Goat said:

If only we had a player that was as critical to our success as McGoldrick was.  None of the injured players are head and shoulders above their replacements so no I wouldn't cut Warne any slack because of injuries.  

Made me laugh that Warne credited the poor run of form on the injuries.  Really?   If he was missing the likes of Sibs and Barks so much how come he has benched them for most of 2023? Only Bird and Ward could be considered first choice and neither have proved to be irreplaceable.

That's ridiculous. When you remove all the players who mobile and have any athleticism, you're going to have problems.

Just because none are McGoldrick is irrelevant. We've been forced into playing with a slow, old team who don't move very well, and it's shown.

[Blondest Goat]

2 minutes ago, Srg said:

That's ridiculous. When you remove all the players who mobile and have any athleticism, you're going to have problems.

Just because none are McGoldrick is irrelevant. We've been forced into playing with a slow, old team who don't move very well, and it's shown

You'll have to let me know which ones you consider to be mobile.  Mendez-Laing has been available for every game I think and he looks like he can move a bit to me.  Thommo has only missed the last couple, again looks quite lively to me.  

 

[G STAR RAM]

4 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not really. It seems like, if his comment about the Lincoln game and 4231 is correct, that he's spent the summer recruiting for 3 at the back. All teams get injuries and that's why there is a squad not just 11 plus subs.

So we can dismiss the comments about McGoldrick also?

[G STAR RAM]

2 hours ago, Blondest Goat said:

If only we had a player that was as critical to our success as McGoldrick was.  None of the injured players are head and shoulders above their replacements so no I wouldn't cut Warne any slack because of injuries.  

Made me laugh that Warne credited the poor run of form on the injuries.  Really?   If he was missing the likes of Sibs and Barks so much how come he has benched them for most of 2023? Only Bird and Ward could be considered first choice and neither have proved to be irreplaceable.

Ridiculous and shows there is no objectivity.

[trappatoni]

I think we should cut Warne some slack for some of the injuries - maybe not those signed with known injury issues but Bird and Ward both look like starters under Warne.  

 

That said are either really going to transform the team?   

It worries me when Warne bangs in about the Wigan game being the best we've played against a very good side.  I thought we were average and they are 20th.   I could see him going back to his back 5 at some point.

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

So we can dismiss the comments about McGoldrick also?

If you want. Your point is what about McGoldrick, he wouldn't have played in a 4231?